We're no fan of moral-equivalency guru Noam Chomsky's. But what he had to say a few years back about public relations as propaganda in fancy dress rings true and sheds light on the recent controversy over that Coca-Cola Super Bowl ad with its dreamy cinematography of doe-eyed children singing "America the Beautiful" in seven languages. All sugary innocence. Why did it make us feel as though the good folks at Coke were rubbing our noses in it? Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart explains:

At this point, we shouldn’t be shocked by the intolerance of some towards immigrants and other cultures. But who could’ve predicted the outrage we saw over the Coca-Cola commercial that aired during last night’s Super Bowl?!

Mosaicist vs assimilationist:

And to be honest, the notion of “E pluribus unum” is more relevant today than it was in 1782 because of our nation’s evolving demographics…

In the years to come, it will be a learning experience for all [of] us as our nation evolves into an even more beautiful mosaic.

Eye of the beholder, but even among allies there is dispute. When we learned this morning that Coke had belatedly added E pluribus unum to the opening frames of the commercial, we twittered our delight. But some on our side of the aisle were calling the whole thing a distraction, protesting that "making a fuss" over the Coke ad was distracting social-media voices from their primary task of holding Republican leaders' feet to the fire over Obama & Company's "comprehensive immigration" campaign:

The controversy surrounding Coca-Cola's Super Bowl ad has focused public attention on the company's pro-amnesty agenda. With the majority of its revenue coming from its international business, the company has long been known for its globalist rather than American world view.

With one lawmaker citing President Lincoln's respect for the rule
of law, the Massachusetts Senate passed a far-reaching crackdown this
afternoon on illegal immigrants and those who would hire them, going
further, senators said, than any immigration bill proposed over the past
five years …

Democrats had resisted such a sweeping proposal, but spent last
evening negotiating today’s measure, shortly after a new polled showed
84 percent of the liberal-leaning state’s voters supported tough
immigration rules barring state services to illegal immigrants.

"The measure comes weeks after immigration measures failed in the
House, and amid heightened
debate over illegal immigration fueled by the
state's election season and Arizona's passage in April of the toughest
immigration law in the nation," reports the Globe [A fine job of
reporting, we must say. Not a whiff of Bush bashing.]:

Thursday's Senate
amendment would also authorize the state attorney
general's office to broker an agreement with federal authorities to help
enforce immigration law. That would be a stark departure for Attorney
General Martha Coakley, who has increased outreach to immigrants,
encouraging them to file employment complaints, regardless of their
legal status. Scores of immigrants whose bosses allegedly failed to pay
their wages have turned to her for help in recent years.